Iran International
Iran’s political establishment has largely rallied behind the decision by the Supreme National Security Council to accept a two-week ceasefire mediated by Pakistan, while critics warn the pause in fighting could harm prospects for political change.
President Massoud Pezeshkian described the truce as “the fruit of the blood of the martyred great leader Khamenei and the achievement of the presence of all people on the scene,” referring to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who was killed earlier in the conflict.
Several lawmakers framed the development as a strategic success. Ebrahim Azizi, head of parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, said the ceasefire reflected the “victory of the Islamic Republic” and the “surrender of the enemy.”
Skepticism toward the United States also remains strong among lawmakers.
Malek Shariati warned that Washington is “untrustworthy,” noting that despite accepting Iran’s 10-point proposal as a basis for talks, “given the record of US bad faith, we are highly pessimistic about the outcome of peace negotiations.”
Fazlollah Ranjbar said Iran should not trust the United States unless it fully accepts Iran’s conditions and pays compensation. However, he added that he supports the ceasefire because it was approved by the Supreme National Security Council and endorsed by Iran’s leadership.
‘Exhaustive war’
Meanwhile, the Islamic Propagation Coordination Council urged media and activists to avoid “any divisive remarks, spreading doubt or despair regarding the system’s high-level decisions, and giving a pass to enemy media narratives.”
Reformist figures have broadly welcomed the ceasefire while calling for domestic political change.
Esmail Gerami-Moghaddam, vice-chair of the Etemad-e Melli Party, said all branches of government and society should unite behind the decision. He criticized opposition groups for “appropriating” past protests and accused them of contributing to the outbreak of war.
Prominent commentator Ahmad Zeidabadi wrote: “Whatever negative judgments we may have about the officials of the Islamic Republic… it cannot be denied that in this exhausting war they acted boldly, fearlessly, and effectively.”
Praising diplomatic efforts, he added: “Without a doubt, this is a brilliant political victory for Iran,” predicting that opportunities for reform could expand while “the method of regime change will fade into the background.”
Podcaster Pouria Bakhtiari wrote sarcastically: “For God’s sake, now that you’ve made a ceasefire and negotiated with a 47-year enemy, try once to make a ceasefire and negotiate with your own people.”
‘Regime change’
Many opposition figures argue the ceasefire undermines momentum for political change and could embolden repression.
Saeed Ghasseminejad, an adviser to Prince Reza Pahlavi, criticized the truce, writing: “Regime change is still the best outcome for the US, Israel, and the Iranian people.”
Some social media users echoed that view. One wrote in Persian: “This level of happiness over a two-week ceasefire is not about saving lives or infrastructure—it is about hope for the survival of the clerical regime or the defeat of the Lion and Sun revolution.”
Others warned of possible consequences during the ceasefire period. One user argued that if executions continue, responsibility would lie with those who opposed the war and called for its end to protect infrastructure.
